The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk)
10:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Moonraker: Please provide evidence of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources per the requirements of
WP:GNG. Making claims of
WP:SOURCESEXIST needs to be supported in the AfD. Minimal transactional coverage in
WP:ROUTINE sources are not typically considered to meet
WP:GNG. Of the five sources currently listed: #1 is a mention in a list (not substantial), #2 is a routine transaction report with two paragraphs about the teams he has played for (and is on USA-specific rubgy site,
run by and written by a single editor), #3 is
primary, #4 is the same source as #2 (so it does not meet the multiple requirement) and half of it is a copy-n-paste from the primary press release as well as it being transaction coverage, and #5 (which seems to be a website that no longer exists, so I highly doubt it would meet
WP:RS) is also transaction coverage. Essentially, the only thing
verifiable in the current article about the subject is that they were a member of certain clubs, nothing substantial.
Yosemiter (
talk)
17:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Yosemiter, the
WP:GNG doesn’t say “multiple”, which is just as well, as the meaning would be debatable. It does use the plural “sources”, which seems to mean more than one, although hardly anyone seems to challenge notability if it comes from one major source. The word “typically” is vague, too. The question is simply whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources. If you are suggesting the sources here are not reliable, do please say more.
Moonraker (
talk)
21:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Moonraker: From GNG: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Yes, GNG is purposely meant to be slightly vague, but there is typically a consensus. Wikipedia is rarely explicit in its guidelines, that is why they are guidelines and not policies. I am simply explaining what is normally expected in an AfD for
WP:BLP.
Yosemiter (
talk)
21:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
That’s fair enough,
Yosemiter. What’s “generally expected” is clearly not essential, as made clear by “There is no fixed number of sources required...” I do not see any solid challenge to the reliability of the sources. You cannot dismiss a source because it is used twice, simply on the basis of a “multiple requirement” which is not there.
Moonraker (
talk)
21:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
None of the sources in the article though look to qualify it for
WP:GNG, as stated by Yosemiter signing articles are just
WP:ROUTINE and very often aren't independent. Having looked through them and done a google search I can find no sources that are secondary and reliable, and the coverage that is there is far and a way NOT significant.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk)
21:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Moonraker:Moonraker: You cannot dismiss a source because it is used twice. From GNG (continued): "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected...Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.Yosemiter (
talk)
21:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Moonraker: on a second note, I am fairly certain I did challenge the sources provided in my first comment. Doug Coil is the main editor of DJ Coil, and the rest are mostly his own family, which probably does not meet
WP:RS per
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. He almost exclusively covers match results and transactions, which makes his page a good source for
WP:V but not necessarily for
WP:N. They do sometimes do player profiles, which would be more than ROUTINE, but I didn't see one here. I already talked about the other three listed sources: #1 mention, #3 primary, and #5 is the defunct site that was simply
a copy-n-paste job of the primary press release as evidenced by the exact same statement in the
DJCoil article. I have not otherwise done a
WP:BEFORE, I am just pointing out the listed sources are probably not sufficient to meet
WP:GNG.
Yosemiter (
talk)
23:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
This is my view as well
Yosemiter, and hence why I have flagged large numbers of these articles for not qualifying for
WP:GNG and
WP:NRU, not just because they don't qualify for
WP:NRU. Obviously all are on a case by case basis but I have been through the sources/searched for sources on all of them and the majority are from the same/similar sources as on this articfle.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk)
10:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Now that I have done a more thorough source search, I am still not seeing anything other than transaction reports for this Michael Reid. Searches turned up very little in relation to the MLR member, although he was a bit mixed in with another
Michael Reid that was in charge of
Ulster Rugby for many years. If someone else can find better sources than those currently provided or that I could find in my own searches, then I would reconsider.
Yosemiter (
talk)
15:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete All of the sources presented are either not independent or not significant. In particular, all independent sources are clearly those that are disqualified under
WP:SPORTCRITTrivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion...Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.